TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sale consideration of ₹ 1.20 crore by both the vendors in equal shares. In law, Mrs. Shyamala Vijai and Mrs. Poornima Shivaram are entitled to half share each over the property. The share of each of the vendors would therefore be ₹ 60 lakhs. Mrs. Shyamala Vijai is, admittedly, a non-resident and to the extent of ₹ 60 lakhs paid to her, the provisions of section 195 are attracted and the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source while making payments to the non-resident through Mrs. Shyamala Vijai. Thus we allow the appeals of the assessee in part and hold that the assessee can be considered as an ‘assessee in default’ only to the extent of ₹ 60 lakhs paid to the non-resident. Levy of consequential interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orney (GPA) to her mother, Mrs. Shyamala Vijai. Mrs. Shyamala Vijai executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant for herself and as GPA holder of Mrs. Poornima Shivaram. The sale consideration of ₹ 1.20 crores was paid by one cheque for ₹ 10 lakhs; 10 DDs for ₹ 9,50,000 and 2 DDs for ₹ 9 lakhs ₹ 6 lakhs respectively. The DDs were issued in the name of Mrs. Shyamala Vijai. The sale deed acknowledges the receipt of ₹ 1.20 crores in the following manner:- In pursuance of the covenants contained herein and the Purchaser having paid the entire sale consideration of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs Only), the receipt of which sum the Vendors hereby acknowledge and also confirm the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2008 by Demand Drafts. The payee, Smt.Purnima Shivaram, was a non-resident. The assessee has not deducted any tax at source at the time of making this payment. Here it may be noted that in the registered Sale Deed dtd.21.04.2008, the seller has given her residential address as No.8, Allen Drive, Kinnelon, NJ 07405, U.S.A. Thus, the assessee, at the time of making payment of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- to the non-resident seller, has not deducted any tax a source as per the provisions of Sec.195 of the Income Tax Act. As the payment of sale consideration of ₹ 1,20,00,000/- to Smt.Purnima Shivaram, a non-resident, is chargeable to tax in India, and as the assessee has failed to discharge its obligation to deduct tax at source as stip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - from April 2008 to December 2010 on 26,88,000 13,87,040 Tax liability u/s. 201(1A) 40,75,040 The total tax liability of the assessee, Sri.R.Prakash, for the asst. year 2009-10, under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is as under: Amount in Rs. Tax liability u/s.201(l) 26,88,000 Tax liability u/s.201(lA) 13,87,040 Total Tax Payable for the asst. year 2009-10 40,75,040 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 7. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Even after the repeated opportunities and show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the appellant failed to produce any evidence in respect of the share of Smt Purnima Shivaram in the said property. The above facts make it clear that the payment of 1,20,00,000/- includes the consideration for the shareholding in the property of the Non Resident. The share of the Non Resident in the sale of the property was chargeable to tax in India as per the Provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8. The CIT(Appeals) also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 327 ITR 456 (SC) and held that in the event of the assessee having a doubt with regard to deductibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Syed Aslam Hashmi v. ITO in ITA No.1313/Bang/2010 107 6/Bang/2012, dated 28.09.2012. The ld. DR pointed out before us that the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision has held that u/s. 195 of the Act, tax is to be deducted on the entire sale consideration. We have perused the aforesaid decision and are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the issue was as to whether u/s. 195 of the Act, tax is to be deducted at source on the capital gain arising out of the transfer of a capital asset or on the entire sale consideration for which the capital asset is transferred. In the aforesaid case, there was no dispute that the payment of the entire sale co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
